The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Krishna Wines

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

investment. Generally, letting out of buildings on monthly rent should be treated as Income from House Property and not as a business income. However, if the building is let out on daily rental basis, certainly it should be treated as a business activity. However, there is nothing to indicate in the records that the appellant was engaged in lodging business

M/S.VISWARUPA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(P)LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court As Arising From The Impugned Order Of The Itat Read As Under:

investment in jewellery and house property. The Assessing Officer (AO) then finalized the block assessment on 29th December, 2003 determining the total undisclosed income as Rs.3,32,09,650/-. The appeal filed by Shri Banka was partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) allowing deletion of some of the additions but confirming a major portion

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Jyothi Wines,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

houses of the partners of one M/s.Artech Group which had close connections with the assessee-firms. One ITA. Nos.211, 226 & 366 of 2010 6 of the partners of M/s.Artech Group was also a partner in the assessee-firms. Documents were recovered in the search conducted in that other firm which related to the assessee-firms as also its partners

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Bheema Wines

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

unexplained amount was 166% of the known sources of income. The learned Trial Court had considered the following aspects apropos the charge of disproportionate assets: ".......wherein it was alleged that accused R.C. Sabharwal had amazed huge assets which is disproportionate to his known Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:16.12.2020 13:19:29 Signature Not Verified

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s Padmapriya Real Estates AND Financiers

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

unexplained expenditure of the appellant which has been acquired from illegal source. The inventory is Ex.P/101 which he has been prepared in 9 sheets. In his cross-examination he admitted that at the time of marriage, the parents usually given the necessary articles to bride and groom like bed, sofa and almirah etc. He further admitted that the ornaments

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant